Well, duhh... you know, it's very easy for a city dweller to be a "progressive"; his world is one of wealth, his playground one of "sites and sounds," of restaurants, theater, and diversity. It's much more difficult for those in rural America who live wholly within the reach of extended family, where "Church" is social entertainment, and male and female roles, and all social divisions, are more traditionally bound; in rural America males still seek "active" entertainment; we work together and we play together in form and manner foreign to the city dweller.

And it's not necessarily a lesser lifestyle.

Ted Nugent got it right.

PS: the NRA has the support of those with the guns; the gun owner cannot be defeated; you need to think about that.

We cling to them in NY, too. Read our Constitution, it is the best written in the nation; my point here is that we have always been possessed of some relative intelligence, and yet, we are also still largely possessed of "Real America."

I don't know if I'd classify Nugent as an extremest - he appears to be relatively law abiding; I don't believe he has ever harmed anyone.

The platform he has gained is of his own independent creation; it is furthered by intelligence, a general audacity, and a wealth that allows such independence. So, I don't know... definitely different though. Interesting, too, because he's not the only rockstar of Republican or more conservative bent.

Yea, I know and it's a shame, I mean, who performs at their conventions, you know? To be so deprived of music... I just don't know, I mean, where is the equality? There oughta be a law, don'tcha think? ; ~ "Equal Entertainment."

This is NOT a plutocracy; therefore there can be no "Plutocrats"; it has never been codified, it's a figment of your imagination. You gotta get off this fantasy BS and embrace reality.

You're equating "everyone has a gun" with "everyone has comprehensive firearms training and is significantly more likely to put a hole in an attacker than in a wall or an innocent bystander" and those two scenarios aren't really the same thing. Take the Holmes shooting; if he'd opened fire on a theater full of people who were well-armed and trained to respond to violent or disastrous scenarios then someone behind him probably would have taken him down fairly quickly. If, on the other hand, he opened fire on a theater full of people who are all armed but have no clue what they're doing then there would probably be more innocent casualties rather than less due to ricochets and panic firing.

You want to see more guns out there? Fine; I'm partially in agreement with you. That said, as much as we have a right to own and use firearms we have a commensurate responsibility to use them carefully and responsibly. Right now I feel like the gun control debate has focused solely on the question of curtailing or expanding the right to access without looking at the responsibilities that come with owning a firearm. What I'd really like to see some sort of standardized firearm safety and training program along the lines of what I described in reply to VQkag2 at the top of the page.

There is definitely that possibility (although there is the commensurate possibility that he would have exacted an even greater death toll as a suicide bomber or as a bomber in general), but the tradeoff from that unless guns were managed properly would most likely be more incidents like the one that sparked this thread. I'm not maligning anyone, but statistically speaking the more guns there are the greater a chance there is of some fool being careless with them.

As far as ownership vs. ability, my idea would be to basically run a universal militia based on what I described to VQkag2, meaning that every man and woman over the age of 18 without a criminal background or serious mental health issues would most likely receive a handgun permit; the idea isn't to restrict ownership by limiting it to a small group of well-trained people, but rather to expand the pool of able, trained men and women so that nearly everyone who wants a gun will be more than equipped to own one.

Are we going to make allowances for those that fail to meet the standard; are we to insert affirmative action? What of equality of gun ownership?

I don't think those who are driven to Columbine terror are of the same mindset as those who resort to kamikaze styled bombings; they are not driven by any sense of duty or nationalism or empowered in any spiritual sense... I just don't see the fact of a universal defense through gun ownership as having a ramping-up effect of bombing styled terror. Perhaps we should ask Bill Ayers?

I doubt that gun ownership will prompt an uptick in bombings; it was merely something that went through my head at the time and while I wouldn't rule it out I wouldn't necessarily rule it in either. As for affirmative action and equality of gun ownership, the answer is no. If someone is negligent or undisciplined with firearms or has a serious criminal record then he or she has no business carrying a gun.

Following WWII, the Germans were deprived of their weaponry; all guns were confiscated and they have never reacquired the right. That does not mean that guns do not exist; there are many in private ownership that authorities are not aware of, most predate the war.

Honestly, I feel sorry for them. Because children are not guilty of the crimes of the father; in fact, even the fathers were not wholly responsible - it was do or die.

There is less diversity; less conflict, less need of self defense; even so, they cannot partake of any of the shooting sports. I don't want this to ever happen in America. If the NRA is our stop-gap, then so be it, because this government definitely does not want us to have our guns.

I'm getting tired of debating our meager following here; time to get away from the box.

So our desire for shooting sport trumps the safety of 1st responders and fellow citizens?

And the poor Germans don't get to enoy shooting sports. This is a concern? Please. They can use video games.

And I gotta ask. if the German fathers (who committed the atrocities) are not "wholly responsible" who is.? The victims? I think you cross a dangerous line when you start making excuses for the criminals of WWII

But maybe that is what you conservatives will stoop to to protect your gun sport?

Nah, I've known many of them, it was do or die; the individual is not wholly responsible - it was the militaristic arm of governance that was responsible.

It doesn't matter how much you rant and rave... or what spin you apply; this government will NEVER take our guns because we have the power to stop them and the determination to do so; it's that simple.

Haha... it's only innocent until the militaristic arm government puts a gun to your head and demands you fly for the Lufwaffe on pain of death for your entire family; have you ever talked to a Lufwaffe pilot?

The Germans have demonstrated a responsible civility; its time they got their guns back.

C'mon you're smart enough to know Dems agreed to that republican idea as a compromise to get our foot in the door. The insurance corps (and repubs) know the plan is to put health insurance corps out of business. Thats why repubs are squealin like stuck pigs about repealin it.

100 years ago we had no healthcare whatsoever - society marched onward, and so it is, you and I exist today.

I'm not really sure but I seem to remember this bill passing with a simple majority, promoted heavily by those such as Pelosi, accompanied by an Executive signature. And it was progressive politics that sought to preserve this bill.

Ending poverty, providing healthcare and education for all are admirable goals but every municipality in this country is running a huge deficit now; they cannot be permitted to file bankruptcy, if they were did would contract with government, who would provide services, who would work for government? And yet we cannot deny them bankruptcy, either, because there is no money.

We can argue that Federal government is "different" in that it is not wholly dependent on tax payer dollars - it prints at will and borrows from foreign nations. But even so, the tax payer is both the security and the payor. You cannot tax him into nonexistence or we are bankrupt. And you cannot tax the rich; he has no more responsibility than any other; all is, and should be, equally apportioned.

Are Vt and Montana more fiscally responsible? What does this say of the Obama role model?

"Cannot tax the rich"? What is that a joke.? Tax them up the a@%! I just read that the1% are hiding 21 trillion dollars. That is OUR money they are hoarding. 90% taxrate over a million dollars.

We gave them everything they asked for (low tax rate, low regulations) they promised to be the job creators. Instead they took our money, sent our jobs overseas, busted our unions, kept our salaries low, stole our pensions, raised our healthcare premiums, crashed the world economy,took our tax paid bailouts, gave themselves big raises and bonuses, created an unemployment crises goin on 4 years, and hid their income overseas to avoid taxes. And you say "we cannot tax the rich".

Well guess what? The rich 1% plutocrats broke the agreement and we want our money back. With interest. 29.99% interest thank you very much.

What a fuckin joke. "cannot tax the rich" LMFAO. They got all the Goddamn money. You wanna take more from the poor.? Greedy. selfish bastards. Our cities and states are struggling because of the 1% crimes listed above. THEY got our money. Grow a bigger set, and demand it back.

Nope, you cannot tax the rich anymore than you tax the poor; they occupy an equal presence, utilize equal environmental resources as sustenance, and an in fact, demand far less of our society. This is called a "moral judgement" and it is written directly into our Constitution as "apportionment."

We've had a "progressive" tax for years simply because equal apportionment of our huge tax burden would literally bury 2/3s of the population; you here argue for a more aggressive progressive tax; you want even more progressiveness in our tax structure. It's absolute BS.

None of these corporations had a contract with you or I, nor with America; this is "free enterprise."

Riiiight. Lets defend the rich! 'cause they don't have an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to avoid paying taxes and rigging the system in their favor.

You drank their cool aid dude. You should be advocating for your own class not the criminals who prey on you and your family.

They use more than the rest of us no doubt. They use more money.

We want our money back! You don't have to take your share. you can let the rich keep your share. But the rest of us ain't satisfied scrounging for their crumbs or waiting for the 1% to tinkle down on us.

Cut taxes for the middle class! Make banks forgive the working class debt as punishment for bankster conjobs! No taxes for the working poor.

Raise taxes on the wealthiest! 90% tax rate on all (interst, cap gains, passive, whatever) million dollar income. Remove all deduction for the wealthiest.

I think that insurance is not an incentive to proper gun care ( I could be wrong - I just don't see it ) and if my child was killed(?) money would not be a compensation. No I want gun owners to be responsible for their ownership handling and storage of their weapons.

Just because you have homeowners insurance, doesn't mean you build bonfires on the livingroom floor.

I'm not in a position to know how many uninsured there would be at first, but you can expect it to mostly be the usual suspects: criminals, anti-government scofflaws, Militant militias and such, as well as those who forgot about that gun buried in a closet somewhere......

Please remember that the point of this insurance is to pressure the manufactures to make safer products.

Most of the rabid gun ownership you see today, is the result of ONE thing and ONE thing only.

FEAR.

But in the end I think this is a valid solution. One that keeps the government out of that solution as much as possible and in the end makes all gun owners responsible for the damage that is inevitable.

Of course it's fear on the part of the buyers. I was referring to the gun manufacturers and politicians. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Your proposal will work. Every gun in existence in the US should be insured.

It would be interesting to have insurance on guns but then we get into the question of what is the value of life.

If it was cheaper than car insurance since i drive my car everyday and have a greater chance of killing someone or hurting something than the gun i shoot every once in while.

It would have to be done carefully and thoughtfully. If a true proposal was brought up with details and with out the true interference of government other than to protect i would bite and see if it could get a chance.

With that said is it economically possible to force many citizens who can not afford the day to day to buy something just because someone is fearful. (most guns are cheap and cheap to own)

Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed. I don't necessarily want us to dispense with drones altogether, but there need to be serious checks regarding when, where, and on whom drone strikes may be used. What I'd like to see is a requirement for an independent judge (or panel thereof) to thoroughly examine the rationale for drone strikes involving noncitizens (with the option for the judge to refuse to issue a death warrant if he believes the strike is unjustified). For US citizens abroad, the prerequisite should be a full public trial in abstentia and conviction of a capital crime.

What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that got touched on in a firearms thread elsewhere), how to not leave loaded guns where little kids can find them, and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.)

I would like to universalize background checks and waiting periods prior to obtaining a gun, as well as the requirement that people register and keep track of their firearms, and I would make it seriously illegal to pull a firearm while legally intoxicated, or to draw within 100 feet of an establishment selling or serving intoxicating liquors, a school or daycare, most other property on which concealed carry is currently a violation of federal law (with exceptions for situations in which the life or personal property of an innocent is in danger), or any property declared by its owner to be a firearm-free zone. Furthermore, I'd continue the practice of attaching significantly elevated penalties to crimes in which firearms were displayed or used, and possibly increase such penalties in certain cases. I would also be quite happy to revoke permits in cases of gross negligence like the one you described above.

The whole point of what I described above is to find a rational solution to the firearms problem that most people can accept. I want to see us embrace a culture in which responsible firearm ownership is allowed and encouraged, but use of firearms for negligent or criminal purposes is treated as a serious breach of the people's trust and discouraged (and punished) accordingly. By providing basically universal training and making permit availability contingent on completion of such training, this plan would encourage most of the population to earn the right to use a firearm while at the same time cracking down on people who misuse guns or have no clue what they're doing.

If the owning of a gun was as beneficial as is claimed by some, gun owners insurance should be very cheap. And the insurance companies would make a lot of money. If both of these are true the obvious question is: Where do I buy it because it must already be on the market. Yet it is never mentioned in a discussion like this. Why not?

From an article by John Haughey,:"Insurance companies deny it but bloggers nationwide are documenting instances where gun owners have allegedly been dropped from property insurance policies because, they suspect, they had weapons in their homes.

Travelers Insurance and State Farm Insurance have both allegedly singled out gun owners for exclusion when renewing policies.

In a Feb. 16 news story in The Hartford Courant by Matthew Sturdevant, Travelers declined to comment about specific cases because its dealings with customers are private. While it insures guns from theft, it would not say if owning certain types of rifles and handguns is a risk that Travelers considers uninsurable."

Then from Bloomberg: Guns

Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. Insurers will generally cover gun owners, with caveats. Whether you have used a weapon in self-defense, with criminal intent or by accident will obviously play a big role in how much liability an insurer will assume. Insurers want to know that guns are properly secured, have safety locks and are kept out of reach of children. Failure to disclose that you have a firearm could lead to an insurer trying to deny your claims in the event of an accident.

The NRA-endorsed coverage offers a $100,000 policy for $165 a year and a $250,000 policy for $254 a year. The policy pays legal fees for criminal and civil defense as long as the person is not guilty. In the case of someone found guilty in criminal court, the coverage would not pay criminal or civil legal fees. But if a person is found not guilty, the policy would pay the criminal and civil costs but would not cover settlement of a civil lawsuit.

I wouldn't be surprised by that, given that someone who owns a gun but hasn't received and taken to heart the commensurate training is more likely to have a stupid accident or see the gun pulled out in the wrong situations and is therefore more likely to become a serious liability to insurers. Furthermore, since there's no requirement for training and no real standards for firearms training there's no way to tell who's responsible and who isn't; therefore gun owners in general will wind up getting slapped with higher insurance rates.

Like I said, I don't think getting rid of guns is the answer. That said, I would definitely be in favor of ensuring that everyone armed is also well-disciplined, well-trained, and will have their permits yanked in the event of a domestic violence incident before things escalate to the point where guns come out.

The weak link in training is, I believe, that there is currently no way of making a predictive assessment of behavior in real panic situations. People can react quite differently from one panic situation to another, and I can confirm this personally.

When you hear people asserting what they would do in a specific situation. They are full of crap.One, they know they can't be challenged. Two, It is a wish that they hope they can make real if the situation actually occurs.Three, it is usually exaggerated for reasons of machismo.

People have been shocked to discover that having reacted in one way in a situation of panic, later discovering in a very similar situation that they reacted in a virtually opposite manner. And they don't know why.

So, training is imputed to "handle" a lot of variables that it does not, in fact, completely mitigate.

The original idea from this came from a discussion on universal military service I was having elsewhere, and I would be more than happy to count gun owners as members of the People's Reserve up through the age of 45 (the People's Reserve entailing a couple days a month of training and the potential for service in their home area as stand-ins and support for the National Guard in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.). I disagree with life sentences for handling illegal guns, partially because I feel like we're handing out life sentences rather cheaply anyway, but a fine and six months for possession and passing on of an illegal firearm and hard time for dealing, transportation, manufacture, or importation (all in bulk) would be fine by me.

And if you call right now and purchase lot #177695 - we will toss in for absolutely free this real purty pearl handled derringer and a 50 count box of bullets - this additional free gift comes with a holster - now this holster is unique - one size fits all - it can be strapped to your wrist or ankle or even clip onto your belt or the top of your boot. This is a truly incredible TV offer..................

I posed a similar solution on a forum and was met with, you can not dictate financial burdens on a 'right' to preclude people from exercising that right. Like a poll tax instituted when African Americans were given the right to vote, to keep them from voting.

I agree, I just think that its a lot harder than it looks being the Constitution is involved and its a spelled out right. My suggestion was for presale psych evals for screening against this recent Batman incident. 1 in 6 Americans have a mental illness with 1 in 17 having severe mental illness according to the NIMH. Do you really want to be handing guns out to everyone?

I could see a gun criminal being made to pay restitution - I don't see how you could tie the manufacturer to it. I could see taxing them specially to have the tax go into a survivor of gun crime fund or something - but I don't see how that would change anything on the manufacturing end.

Like I say - perhaps I am missing something in comprehending the concept.

liability insurance for gun owners may be a good thing but let's not stop there. How about welfare recipients put to work so they can "earn" it and inmates should be charged for their stay while incarcerated, rather than them getting paid for being in jail

Even in our very small County, the local sheriff has his usual returning "jail" customers. This is nothing more than money in the bank for them. They are sentenced for a short period of time, with a fine and put back on the street again and 80% of them are recurring offenders.

Quite true. There is a small group in our society that benefit from the larger group below that supports it. They take a free ride on top, receiving a disproportionate share of the wealth that is produced. The poor, middle income, and even the well educated are all shortchanged.

Occupy is a horizontal thing, so yes Im not a fan of centralized power, like most rational people.

The thing is, there arent really any solutions to people snapping. We already do background checks. I suppose not allowing the gun shows and banning auto weapons would help curb deaths from drug trade and what not, but it wont stop stuff like this.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; what this means is that if you cannot "bear" that arm, it can be denied. This one clause limits the firepower of the individual; it prevents the rich from constructing defensible fortresses, and I think that in itself is restrictive enough.

Not only are concepts of legal/ illegal possession unenforceable they are also unconstitutional, as our only means of balancing the desire for power as totalitarian.

People are killed everyday not by the legal or illegal possession of automobiles, but by improper use.

It seems there is this issue of virtue; responsibility is an act of charity - we are fraught with immaturity, mired in moral dystopia.

Not true; parents could take more responsibility for children and to society; and society could take more responsibility for the mentally ill; and OWS could stop openly promoting a Bill Ayers violence.

I not only value my gun rights, I am keeping my gun rights, at all cost. Have you ever read about British executions? In case such as Holmes where he has violated all but the ruling he would have died three very miserable deaths; had he challenged the police he would have died four. It was one helluva deterrent.